V S RATHINAM CHETTIAR Vs. VEDARANESWARAR SWAMI TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the appellant/respondent has challenged the order dated 24th June, 2004, passed by learned single Judge in W. P. No. 34355 of 2003 whereby and whereunder while it was accepted that the order passed on 23rd Dec. , 1971, had not been served on appellant, and the order passed by the respondent Special Commissioner-cum-Commissioner of Land Administration remanding the case was upheld, instead of remanding the case to the authority to whom the case was remanded by respondent, Special Commissioner-cum-Commissioner of Land Administration, learned single Judge remitted the case to the Tribunal constituted under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'inam Estates Act' ).

(2.) AS the case could be disposed of on a short question of law, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one, as noticed hereunder: according to the appellant, the property R. P. 391 was purchased by him from Mariappa Pillai on 3rd April, 1965, alongwith a building constructed thereon. He was paying house tax through assessment No. 115. He purchased superstructure in N. S. No. 175/309 (to the extent of 0. 01) and paying a sum of Rs. 200/= every year to the respondent Vedaraneswarar Swami Temple (hereinafter referred to as 'devasthanam') for the site. There are seven shops assessed to panchayat tax under assessment Nos. 134, 135, 44, 46 and 50. Similar claim was also made with regard to N. S. 175/308 (to an extent of 0. 02 ). Further case of the appellant is that the Assessment Settlement Officer issued impugned order on 23rd Nov. , 1971, allowing the claim of Devasthanam with regard to Schedule-A property and the appellant's prayer for issuance of patta in his name in respect of land in question was rejected without intimating the same. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer in R. C. No. 6886/93/a2 as per Explanation 1 (b) below Schedule attached to the Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1965 now known as Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as 'rules, 1976'), which was rejected on 14th Feb. , 1994. Thereafter, the appellant preferred first revision application under Rule 7 before the Director of Settlement in E2/838/97 dated 30th Aug. , 1998, dismissed of on 30th Aug. , 1998. Subsequently, second revision was preferred by the appellant under Rule 8 before the Special Commissioner-cum-Commissioner, Board of Revenue having been abolished, it was registered as No. K-1/8/2000. In the said case, by impugned order dated 12th May, 2003, the Commissioner having noticed the fact that the order dated 23rd Dec. , 1971 was not communicated to the appellant, remitted the matter to the Director of Settlement for reconsideration of the first revision application (used the term Appeal ). The respondent Devasthanam having challenged the said order, learned single Judge, by impugned order dated 24th June, 2004, while did not choose to interfere with the order of remand, observed that the appeal should be determined by Tribunal under Inam Estates Act.

(3.) THE main plea taken by appellant is that the order dated 23rd Nov. , 1971, having passed by Assistant Settlement Officer u/s 15 (4) of Inam Estates Act, the appeal was maintainable before the Settlement Oficer as per Explanation 1 (b) below Schedule attached to the original Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1965, against which first revision under Rule 7 was maintainable before the Director of Settlement and second revision under Rule 8 was maintainable before Board of Revenue, which having abolished, will lie before the Special Commissioner-cum-Commissioner, who has passed the order on 12th May, 2003. On the other hand, counsel for the Devasthanam, while referred to the first part of the order dated 23rd Nov. , 1971, submitted that the enquiry being made pursuant to suo motu power u/s 12 of Inam Estates Act, the appeal is only maintainable before the Tribunal u/s 12 (2) of Inam Estates Act, which was the ground and accepted by the learned single Judge. It was contended on behalf of Devasthanam that the Assistant Settlement Officer is not required to pass any order u/s 15 (4 ). Section 12 empowers him to make an enquiry. However, it was accepted that the appellant has no grievance against the first part of the order dated 23rd Nov. , 1971, passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, wherein order was issued in favour of Devasthanam in respect of Schedule-A properties. The grievance of the appellant is only with regard to N. S. No. 175/309 (to the extent of 0. 1) and N. S. 175/308 (to an extent of 0. 02), which was shown under Schedule-B property, and as prayer for grant of patta u/s 15 (4) has been rejected by the last paragraph of the order dated 23rd Nov. , 1971.